A Wonky Valentine

13 Feb

Inspired by the likes of #AcademicValentine I thought it might be time for a policy analyst’s version:

 

Labour is Red

Tories are blue

You should be briefing

And I should be too

 

Lib Dems are Amber

SNP Yellow

Let’s brief them all

Partisanship’s not mellow

 

Greens are self-evident

Purple is UKIP

If we brief the whole House

My heartbeat will skip *

 

 

*I know Welsh and NI

Come in many a shade

And Independents on charts

are usually greyed

And two seats are vacant-

Case yet to be made;

But I’m also aware

Some may find details boring

You could be a wonk’s Valentine

If not currently snoring ….

 

 

Brexit music for a Friday

3 Feb

The other day I could have sworn I read that there was going to be a ‘Hard rock Brexit’ – turns out it was actually ‘rock hard’ – but hey, it got me thinking about Brexit expressed in musical genres, and so a list was born …

 

Hard Rock Brexit: Well if it is ‘rock hard’, clearly nothing by AC/DC, and leaving the Single Market means no Norwegian death metal options, but hopefully our negotiators Are EU Experienced …

Funky Brexit:  Harks back to Parliament – if it all goes pear-shaped can escape in the Mothership …

Punk Brexit:  Feat.  Walking on the Blue Flag Beaches – with street fashion –  think Article 50 bin bag with safety-pinned Amendments

Brexit Musicals:  West Side of Europe Story, Anything Goes incl. ‘I Get a Kick out of EU’ by Coal Importer  (Don’t say The Lady is A Trump)

MOR Brexit: For when sovereignty is More than a Feeling …

Hip Hop Brexit:  Anything by Outkast

Soul Brexit:  What’s Going On? Feat. (Maybe not) Flying high in the Friendly Sky

Happy listening everyone!

Going round in circles …

16 Jan

Mid-January, and it’s Davos time again – the annual pilgrimage of business leaders and heads of state to the summit at the summit of Europe.  Davos, at 5000 ft in the Swiss Alps, is the highest town on the continent, and is the venue for the World Economic Forum jamboree, where big ideas are discussed by day, and big parties held at night.  Davos is the playground of the kind of ‘citizens of nowhere’ so derided in recent political conversations, and embodied in ‘Davos man’, the jetsetting, be-suited thought leader, to be found at the top of corporations, tech start-ups – and even governments.

Given recent political trends, it is perhaps not surprising that Davos is out to present its more caring and open-minded side to the world.  Around a third of attendees, after all, come from civil society organisations and academe.  This makes it all the more surprising that efforts to create a more gender-equal pool of participants has so far resulted in women forming less than a quarter of delegates. No wonder this progress was described as ‘glacial’ in the Guardian, although rumour has it that the side events ‘for wives’ of years gone by, have been shelved ….

Meanwhile, in the world of wider inequalities, WEF is keen to show that the crowd invited is younger  than before, with millennials on board, and that supporters of populist parties in Europe, and of Donald Trump himself, will be there. But since these types include at least one enormously rich man who is already a Davos regular, this may do little to assuage doubters who see it as an elitist talking shop. As Bloomberg note, this year’s overarching theme, ‘Responsive and Responsible leadership’, suggests that Davos man (and the minority of women) may have had cause to think that they themselves could be part of the problem.  There’s a lot of soul-searching about the inequities of globalisation going on in the programme.  With Oxfam unveiling its revamped index of inequality showing that this year 8 – yes just 8 – billionaires now have wealth equivalent to that owned by the lower half – yes half – of the world’s population, it’s no wonder.  Oxfam Britain’s Chief Executive said that this meant that those in control of half the world’s wealth could now squeeze into a golf buggy – it’s a wonder he didn’t say ski lift, but that may have been considered a little too close to the bone.

Over in Fortune magazine I’m told that the ‘circular economy’ is now more than just ‘Davos-speak’.  The ‘circular economy’ refers to processes whereby manufactured goods can be recycled or reused in whole or in part, so as to avoid ending up in landfill, with all the accompanying negative environmental and climate implications.  Every year at Davos a series of awards are handed out for the best initiatives in circular economy innovation.  It occurred to me that this scheme should now be extended to – but inverted – for politics. After years of alleged groupthink, and handing out colour-coded badges to show which ever-decreasing circle of the elite its participants belong to, Davos could take the bull by the horns. The Forum could give out prizes for the best echo chamber-busting innovations to emerge each year  – we all seem to have had enough of circular politics.

 

 

 

 

 

A Post-Truth Christmas Stocking

21 Dec

Well, 2016 has been quite a year.  As it comes to a close I’ve sketched out the contents of a post-truth Christmas stocking, to remember what has been and carry into the year ahead…

Every stocking has a toy gimmic – and what better this year than the mini-boomerang?  Carry in your pocket, and when you have an opinion, you can voice it as you throw the boomerang, and watch it come right back at you.  It’s the portable echo chamber we all need to remind us how far ideas travel:

boomerang-mini

 

How about some stationery?  The post-truth Christmas stocking contains your own ballot pencil – guaranteed indelible and conspiracy-proof should you wish to vote on anything:

stub

 

… and if you do need to rub anything out, try the 2 sided post-truth eraser – as you rub out the facts, see the lies grow bigger and bigger :

facts2

littlelies

A pocket game is always welcome, and this year it can only be Top Trumps:

trumped

 

Last, but not least every stocking has something sweet, and for Christmas 2016 the selection is embassy favourite, Farageo Rocher, and a post-Brexit Toblerone – a fitting reminder of the peaks and troughs of an epic year:

chocs-away

 

Merry Christmas everyone!  See you in 2017

Does it matter what kind of man is on the Women and Equalities Select Committee?

14 Dec

Last year I wrote a blog which asked ‘Does it matter that there is only one man on the Women and Equalities Committee?’, and I concluded that it probably did.  While it is entirely appropriate that the majority of members of the committee are women, the absence of senior male MPs could be construed as indicating that powerful parliamentarians are not much interested in women and equalities issues.  And there could have been a danger that those on the committee might be left to get on with ‘their’ business, apart from issues widely considered to be more part of the political mainstream.

Since then, following the General Election, a second man joined the Committee. More recently, The Good Parliament report was published, looking at how to make parliament more representative, diverse and inclusive. Recommendations included making single gender committees prohibited, and that issues of representativeness be borne in mind in Select Committee membership. These recommendations make a useful counterbalance to the fact that the most prestigious committees tend to be overwhelmingly male, and, that at one point, the House of Commons ended up with a Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport which was entirely white and male.

Fast forward to the news that has just emerged that Philip Davies, an MP with a record as an ‘anti-feminist’, has been elected unopposed as a new member of the Women and Equalities Committee.  Is this a problem? It could be, as he pronounced on the Daily Politics today that he saw his position as similar to UKIP members sitting in the European Parliament – they disagree with everything the institution stands for, but are there to hold it to account.  For a Committee whose purpose is to hold government to account on issues concerning women and equality, it seems odd to join in order to challenge its raison d’etre.  Davies has asserted that it should be called the ‘Equalities Committee’, dropping the reference to women altogether.  This indicates he thinks that gender equality has been achieved, which, given the continuing lack of equal political representation or equal pay, and the continuing unequal share of unpaid and caring labour – to mention just a few persistent gender issues – is a view which flies in the face of everyday evidence. Perhaps even more bothersome, though, is the fact that no-one stood against him to fill the vacant place.  This would suggest that the Conservatives have attached little importance to membership of the Women and Equalities Committee, or to wider perceptions of such an unconventional candidacy.  You might have thought that they would have produced a candidate who believes that the Committee needs to exist, and that women’s voices should be heard. On the anniversary of the day women voted for the first time, and just when women have reached the 30% mark among MPs in parliament, you would have thought that what the politicos call the ‘optics’ would matter.

Forever Autumn Statement (with apologies to Jeff Wayne et al)

23 Nov

The summer sun is fading as the year grows old
And darker days are drawing near
The winter winds might be much colder
When EU’s not here.

We watch the points track south across the autumn graphs

And one by one they disappear
We hope we won’t be tracking with them
When EU’s not here

With development funds EU came to support us
Like a loose counterfoil EU’s blown away

Through autumn’s gold spreadsheet we used to click our way
We always loved this time of year.
Those falling points may disturb now
Cause EU won’t be here

With development funds EU came to support us
Like a loose counterfoil EU’s blown away ….

 

 

 

Pro Bono?

1 Nov

I can’t quite believe that this is the third blog I’ve written this year about dubious choices for awards; but – like a lot else in 2016 – the apparently simple act of rewarding women with prizes, seems to have gone awry.

First up was the Pretty Curious Challenge. This was a science and innovation competition for girls, which mysteriously elected part way through the process to include boys too, and ended up with a male winner by popular vote; next, just a couple of weeks ago, the UN was in hot water, over the choice of fictional character Wonder Woman, as an Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. What could possibly be number 3? Well, Glamour magazine have just announced that one of the nominees in their high profile Women of the Year Awards is: Bono.  Yes, that’s right, U2’s frontman, and indubitably male philanthropist, is one of their Women of the Year – except he’s a kind of token man award winner, added in amongst the women. If you’re not speechless yet, the justification given for his award might just get you there:

‘when a major male rock star who could do anything at all with his life decides to focus on the rights of women and girls worldwide—well, all that’s worth celebrating. We’re proud to name that rock star, Bono, our first Man of the Year.’

Yes, imagine, a famous and talented man has actually thought about women – he could have done anything, supported any cause, but he decided to devote some time to the cause of women in poverty.  How telling is this statement about the secondary status of women? Women, it would appear, in Glamour’s world, are fantastically lucky if powerful men give them so much as a fleeting thought ….

What makes this all the worse, is that this reasoning behind selecting Bono, is preceded in the awards blurb by mention of the United Nations’ ‘HeforShe’ campaign.  This is fronted by Emma Watson, an actual woman, and a major actress who could have done anything, but decided to make the case for involving men in women’s rights across the globe.  So, if the shtick is, as Glamour put it, that ‘these days most women want men—no, need men—in our tribe’ why not give the award to a famous woman encouraging just that, instead of creating an additional place for a man? I cannot think of any convincing reason why not.

Awards that should be given to living, breathing female role models this year, have repeatedly been handed out to a man or boy, or a fantasy character.  This might hover just slightly above the indefensible if it was a case of ‘job done’ in terms of women’s equality.  And yet, over and over again it is shown that while there has been progress, women’s position in society is far from equal with men’s.  Only last week the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index showed that worldwide it will take an average of 83 years for women to reach parity with men, across economic and political power, health and education.  In spite of similar or better educational attainment, women still aren’t reaching the highest echelons of professions, and women remain disproportionately in low paid and undervalued jobs, and doing the bulk of unpaid domestic work and caring.  This means that awards for women should remain spaces where women who have achieved against the backdrop of continuing gender inequality are celebrated.  So, no, I am not pro Bono’s prize – why should a privileged man be rewarded here, in an award for women, for thinking about women’s plight, when so many women live and breathe the cause all the time?

%d bloggers like this: